What does an instructor offer?

[Panama Jones]

Scuba diving in almost entirely unregulated. The tightest requirements is that most ops won't take you out without a c-card. The reason I'm asking the question is because I have heard so much about not teaching people to dive, always leave it to a qualified instructor. This is not a troll, it is a legitimate question. What does the instructor offer?

My points

1. Have you met some instructors? Many can teach the material as written but do a poor job of explaining the theory behind it.
2. Prerequisites for instructors are very light and I would argue that the material can be taught by most intelligent experienced divers.
3. First aid? Comes at the Rescue Diver level
4. Insurance for the student while being instructed - probably a reasonable reason to go with an instructor.

My argument. If you are a highly experienced diver (I am not), you understand an practice the OW material by nature and even if not, you know enough to teach it. Why not separate the course from the exam and create OW examiners at a cheaper cost. Just like a driver that is taught by his/her parents then goes for the test.

Written test - fail go home, pay again come back
Gear setup - fail go home, pay again come back
Check out dives - fail go home, pay again come back

And possibly even a money maker. How many drivers keep paying exam fees time and time again because the parent can't teach.
Again...real question so no flaming.

 

[TMHeimer]

I will throw this in. Instructors have detailed backround knowledge in dive theory among many other things. I would guess that the average experienced diver does not, or in general has less. Instructors are also taught how to teach. This is probably not a huge concern if an experienced diver teaches someone one on one. But a group class could present problems. Let's compare to school teachers. All have pretty much the same educational backround. Their teaching abilities range from great to awful. I would assume the same is true for scuba instructors. Nothing can be done about that. Would you rather your kid be taught math by someone who's good at math or by a certified math teacher? Same with scuba. Your call.

 

[DevonDiver]

1. Have you met some instructors? Many can teach the material as written but do a poor job of explaining the theory behind it.

Firstly, that's a gross generalization.

Secondly, they can explain the designated materials integral to that specific course. That is what they are, essentially, being paid to teach you. They may defer more in-depth explanations of concepts or theory under considerations that it might confuse or overwhelm the student. Or they may simply just not provide more than you have paid for, on that course. However, Divemaster and Instructor ratings require 'mastery' (study and exam) of dive theory WELL in advance of the level being taught.

I guess it depends on your personal definition of "an experienced diver", but I've not many non-pro/non-technical divers who could happily explain concepts like 'm-values' or 'tissue compartments' and how they relate to the formation of dive tables like the RDP...

2. Prerequisites for instructors are very light and I would argue that the material can be taught by most intelligent experienced divers.

Prerequisites control entry onto courses. That is all. To graduate from instructor courses, those candidates need to have passed a battery of various examinations and practical tests.

How would you argue that the material could be taught by most intelligent experienced divers?

I'm still unsure what you consider an 'experienced' diver to be...

3. First aid? Comes at the Rescue Diver level

Pro-level rescue assessments are more rigorous and pass/fail. The Rescue Diver course is, for all intent and purpose, NOT a pass/fail course. It is a learning course.

The rescue diver has been taught rescue skills. The Dive Pro has confirmed rescue skills. That's a big difference.

4. Insurance for the student while being instructed - probably a reasonable reason to go with an instructor.

Liability insurance is certainly an issue. Instructors remain 'liable' for their students (have to prove correct training was carried out) for 7 years post-training.

However, instructors are also 'liable' by membership agreements to adhere to specific agency standards governing best teaching practice and safety....and are also subject to Quality Assurance procedures. They have a lot to lose, least of all their considerable financial investment in gaining teaching status qualifications, should they deviate from, or fail to apply the approved practices, deliver the correct training or exercise unreasonable professionalism or judgement in the course of teaching.

Why not separate the course from the exam and create OW examiners at a cheaper cost.

Primarily, because a diving c-card is NOT a license... it is a proof of training. It is proof of 'qualification' relative to undertaking a specific syllabus of instruction. There is no such thing as a 'recreational diving license'.

A c-card does not shows "Diver A can do this". It shows "Diver A took this course". There is a world of difference, particularly in respect of liability, between those two statements.

 

[TSandM]

I agree that there is no real requirement for deep understanding of theory, or even truly polished skills, to be an instructor for most agencies.

However, teaching students is not just the book work. In fact, in my experience, it's the unusual student who WANTS to know the theory at anything more than a superficial level.

What's important about an instructor is that they have been taught a method of teaching, and they should, by their commitment, adhere to the curriculum -- which means it all gets covered. An "experienced diver" may not remember to talk about something that doesn't come up during the dives, but may be critical for the student at a later time. (For example, teaching cramp removal -- if the instructor doesn't get cramps, and the student doesn't have problems, why would the "mentor" remember to talk about this?)

In addition, the instructor has been taught to watch for the dangerous portions of the instruction process. "Control" is not just knowing where the student is -- it's being prepared for the weird things that students do when things don't go as planned.

 

[robertarak]

As you stated, scuba is almost entirely unregulated. That is to say there is little governmental regulation, but we are self-regulating. We are allowed to be because our system of self regulation works. While mentors or learning some things from experienced buddies is great it lacks standardization. Even in our small Scubaboard community, if you ask a "how to" question, you will get 100 differing responses....and each one is how someone's experienced buddy does it. Certified instructors learn how to teach, then are tested to ensure they can do it effectively and safely. They are given guidelines to follow so that each student learns the same techniques and creates standardization early on. A good instructor will recognize problems before they occur and have the teaching experience to correct them. A good instructor is a good diver and a good educator. Being only one or the other is not enough. Finally a certified instructor has committed the time and resources to become an instructor and has received a certification that tell their students (hopefully) that they will safely learn from a qualified person.... not just a diver.

 

[chrpai]

Would you rather your kid be taught math by someone who's good at math or by a certified math teacher? Same with scuba. Your call.

I'd argue that this attitude is why our math scores are so low. Parents expect kids to get everything at school and then don't engage at home. I'd expect both teachers and parents to be involved and if the teachers have a certain way of teaching then to send some instructor notes home to the parents. I'm pretty good at math but I don't know the latest teaching styles so I sometime have a hard time teaching the kids because the way I show them is different then the way they are being shown at school.

In short I don't think it's A or B. I think it's both A and B.

---------- Post added August 21st, 2013 at 07:44 AM ----------

What's important about an instructor is that they have been taught a method of teaching, and they should, by their commitment, adhere to the curriculum -- which means it all gets covered.

If by "all" you mean what's contained in the curiculum, yes. But there's frequently a lot missing. Yes, mentors may have different ways of teaching it, but there is a lot they pass on that wasn't covered in O/W.

Hence why I think A and B is the right answer.

 

[captain]

What do instructors offer, a C card and and a quick way for someone to think they are a diver.
Scuba in is most basic form is a fairly simple activity. Swimming proficiency is a prerequisite, the physics involved are at a high school level and basic skills are fairly easy to master with practice, practice practice.. The hard part is the motivation to do the real learning and not just learn enough to pass a test.
Anyone who has the motivation to spend the time and effort to learn on their own can. Today the NOAA diving manual is the place to start learning. I would suggest to anyone considering diving to buy it and read it thoroughly before taking a scuba course. I did it as a 13 year old 56 years ago using the Navy diving manual and continued to learn on my own as new methods, equipment and breathing mixtures came into use. I eventually did get a C card because I needed it to gain access on dive charters and dive sites, not to learn to dive.

 

[Crowley]

I don't agree that SCUBA is almost entirely unregulated. In some parts of the world, there are regulations so "ahem" retentive that they measure up against grocers not being able to sell bananas that are too straight... (true, by the way). Secondly, as has been previously stated, the business is self-regulated by the agencies involved. Whether or not they actually agree with one another or not is a different matter, but the short version is that killing people is very bad for business, and therefore there is a minimum code of practice that is generally agreed upon, even if some organisations don't de facto subscribe to it. Those that don't still adhere to those minimum standards, and then choose to go above and beyond them. There is no agency that I'm aware of that chooses to deliberately defy them, although there are instructors and dive centres that will.

I am an instructor - and therefore have met many instructors and it is correct to say that some instructors cannot explain anything behind what they are teaching. Let's get rid of these instructors. There are also school teachers out there who don't understand what they are teaching and doctors out there who don't know what they are diagnosing - let's get rid of them also - the problem is that most students (or patients) don't know that the instructor doesn't know this. HOWEVER - most instructors have a good, very solid grounding in basic dive theory. They may not be able to explain half-times and compartments and M-values and Gas Laws, but then I would challenge all experienced divers to write me an independent essay detailing and explaining all of the above. Practically speaking, you don't need to know *why* a gas expands due to a decrease in pressure, you just need to know that it *does*. Many instructors can, actually, teach the basic physical and physiological principles that apply to diving.

First aid does not come at the Rescue Diver level - it is a pre-requisite for Rescue Diver certification (at least in the PADI world). In Switzerland, First Aid is a pre-requisite for the motor vehicle driving test, which causes many more injuries per year than scuba diving, but I can't name another country off the top of my head where this is the case.

A knowledgeable adult could potentially teach their kids the entire school curriculum, or first aid, or how to drive (my dad taught me how to drive a car) and there is no reason why a knowledgable, experienced diver could not teach people how to dive - but when it comes to practical application and the real world, a certified instructor for diving is pretty much mandatory. In most places, we have to be insured, and we have to abide by agency standards, which - whatever people think of them - have been drawn up according to laws and lawsuits and clever people wearing suits who understand the law - so if an accident happens during training, but we have been shown to have conducted ourselves within those standards, then we have the full force of an international business ready to defend and support us. If we deviate from those standards, we're screwed if something bad happens.

Consider therefore, that in this litigious day and age where you can sue people over a hot cup of coffee, that although an instructor may not be able to exactly explain the theory behind diving, the majority have been through a training program which at least teaches people how to dive safely, with agency/financial/business support. It's entirely possible that somebody could also self-train to be a doctor, but I wouldn't want to be that person's shoes if they made an incorrect diagnosis: "your patient died because you told him he had a cold but he really had Ebola" - "but I'm a self trained, knowledgeable, experienced physician!" - "oh really," says the judge as his gavel strikes the block, "we'll be seeing you in 20 years".

And I think that is the answer to the question - and it's a fair question - I would like to see all instructors be able to teach detailed physiology and physics, but mostly I'd like to know that my professional colleagues are able to teach good buoyancy control and safe diving practices, within standards and regulations that have been proven to be safe and successful over a number of years now, in a pastime that was once the preserve of a privelaged few, and is now a commonplace holiday activity for millions of people, in a climate where there are more lawsuits than actual laws.

Safe diving,

Crowley

 

[Diver0001]

What does the instructor offer?

The instructor knows what you don't know.

The instructor can transfer that knowledge to the student in a structured manner which (if they do it well) the student will retain on the long term.

The instructor can SHOW the student how to dive and to break down the necessary skills into steps that can be learned (relatively) quickly, easily and safely as well as doing so in an order that presents less complex skills first and builds on mastery of those skills to incorporate into more complex skills later. (for example, removing the regulator from your mouth and replacing/clearing it is also a component of the OOA skill). There is a didactic system used by most agencies that incorporates this and it's perhaps easy to underestimate the power and efficacy of it.

And perhaps most importantly, the instructor is trained to see problems arising before they get out of control and to intervene adequately in the case of unsafe situations arising under water.

Especially that last bit is something that many, even experience, divers don't regularly have to deal with.

That said, you make the point that there seems to be little difference between an experienced diver and an instructor.

True. As divers. But diving and teaching diving are not the same thing. In fact some highly advanced divers are horrible teachers. Likewise some highly effective instructors aren't overly proficient divers. The skill sets do overlap but are not interchangeable.

You would also seem to be suggesting that an experienced diver could take on the task of teaching others to dive without having followed any instructor training. This may be true if they have real world skills that could translate to teaching and/or if they have a natural knack for it, but my impression is that such cases are the exception. I believe there would be too much risk of "forgetting" to transfer key knowledge or to take unnecessary risks without being fully aware of them.

Does that sort of address your question?

R..

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Scuba diving in almost entirely unregulated. The tightest requirements is that most ops won't take you out without a c-card. The reason I'm asking the question is because I have heard so much about not teaching people to dive, always leave it to a qualified instructor. This is not a troll, it is a legitimate question. What does the instructor offer?

My points

1. Have you met some instructors? Many can teach the material as written but do a poor job of explaining the theory behind it.
2. Prerequisites for instructors are very light and I would argue that the material can be taught by most intelligent experienced divers.
3. First aid? Comes at the Rescue Diver level
4. Insurance for the student while being instructed - probably a reasonable reason to go with an instructor.

My argument. If you are a highly experienced diver (I am not), you understand an practice the OW material by nature and even if not, you know enough to teach it. Why not separate the course from the exam and create OW examiners at a cheaper cost. Just like a driver that is taught by his/her parents then goes for the test.

Written test - fail go home, pay again come back
Gear setup - fail go home, pay again come back
Check out dives - fail go home, pay again come back

And possibly even a money maker. How many drivers keep paying exam fees time and time again because the parent can't teach.
Again...real question so no flaming.

What does the instructor offer? Well ... it depends on the instructor.

Much of what you say has merit if you choose a bad instructor ... and there are many of them out there. Instructors who only parrot the class materials and who teach to the minimum levels don't really contribute a lot to the learning process. Prerequisites for instructors are, as you say, very light ... and those who get churned through the mills tend to (at least initially) lack the experience in real-world diving to help a student make the transition between knowledge and understanding ... you can't teach what you haven't yet learned.

On the other hand, a good instructor can bring a great deal to a class that doesn't exist in any class materials. In order to understand the value they can bring you need to consider that the purpose of scuba instruction is less about the skills and knowledge than it is about teaching you how to thrive in an environment we were never meant to be in. Think of skills and knowledge as tools. Learning the tools is important. But without context, you haven't learned the "craft" of scuba diving ... the understanding of why those skills and that knowledge are important, and how to apply them to the process of a real-world dive in a dynamic condition that you can't always anticipate in advance. In scuba diving, every dive involves making decisions based on the circumstances of the dive, and making good decisions is as important (if not more so) than mastering the skills. It is the application of the tools you learned how to use in class.

Sure, you can often learn those things from an intelligent, experienced diver ... and a good mentor is worth their weight in gold. But just because someone is intelligent and experienced doesn't necessarily mean they will be good at conveying what they know to someone else. A huge part of what makes a good instructor good is their ability to teach. Every student is unique. A good instructor knows how to evaluate their students, and modify their approach to training to reach out and get the most from each of them.

Scuba instruction is more than just knowledge reviews, gear checks and skills evaluation ... that's just the framework of the class. The real value is in learning how it applies to what you're doing, and understanding the "how" and "why" of all those little things you hear in class.

Your book will tell you "Plan your dive and dive your plan" ... a good instructor will teach you how.
Your book will tell you "End your dive with 500 psi in your tank" ... a good instructor will teach you how.
Your book will tell you "Always dive with a buddy" ... a good instructor will not only tell you why that matters, but will teach you how to be a good dive buddy.

Without context, those things are meaningless slogans.

The question I always have for my students at the beginning of every class is "what are your expectations?" If all you want is to take a test, learn how to set up the equipment, and demonstrate a minimal ability to perform skills in a sequential manner while kneeling on the bottom, I'll be happy to refer you to another instructor. If, on the other hand, you're here to learn how to plan a dive, conduct your dives without relying on a supervisor, choose and be a good dive buddy, manage potential failures without stressing out, and make good decisions about when and how to dive ... then I'm your guy. It'll cost you a bit more, both in money and effort ... so if cost is the determining factor, then you probably want to choose a different way to learn those things.

Oh, and I might as well make this clear right now ... I'm not going to teach you how to dive. That comes with experience and practice. I'm going to teach you how to learn diving safely and effectively. I'm going to train you on what you need to know, what skills you need to practice, how to practice them, and under what circumstances you should consider practicing them. I'm going to get in the water with you, watch what you're doing, tell you what I'm seeing, suggest some things you can try doing to improve, help you select equipment that is functionally appropriate, and repeat as necessary while you teach yourself the art of diving.

And finally, you're not paying me for a certification card ... you're paying me for the services I just described. The card comes from your own effort ... and if you get one from me, it's because you earned it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)